> Seems really inefficient, but it works 4D has taken pains to say that object fields *are not JSON*. They can be represented as JSON, but they aren't stored or accessed as JSON internally. So, it does seem like a good bug report/feature request to make Old work correctly on object fields. In fact, it's probably one of the more important field types that it could work on it. Having to serialize it and run an expensive comparison ourselves feels a bit over the top.
If you put in a feature request/bug report, shoot a note over here so that any of us that care can go and vote for your idea. Speaking of objects and feature requests, Cannon "Object Module" Smith made a fantastic feature request the other day: http://forums.4d.fr/Post/EN/19051683/1/19051684 The idea is to have an automatic, internal C_OBJECT-type structure (a dictionary) maintained by 4D for each widget on a form. If they did this, you wouldn't see anything different on the form, but if you wanted to associated custom attributes or data with the widget (rules, bindings, hints, extra lookup data, filters, formats, privileges, etc.), you would know right where to get/set the data. It may sound like a small thing, but it would be a *huge* win. Just massive. You can do something on this order now with a custom C_OBJECT in a form or process, but the init/cleanup cycle is kind of 'heavy'. Also, that makes the price of admission high enough that most people won't do it. Many will never even have the chance to understand why this is such a great, great idea. If the feature were built in, people would fall into it and quickly feel like it was always there. I find myself promoting Cannon's idea becuase it's just so darn good that if I don't, I'll quickly forget where I heard it and then later "invent" it myself ;-) I used to work with a guy and I'd come in some mornings and say: "I've had this amazing idea! You're going to LOVE it!" Blank stare. Answer "Yeah, I loved it yesterday when I told it to you." Cryptomnesia. It's a thing. Anyway, please go consider and vote for Cannon's idea. Between me and Peter Hay I think we've gotten the vote count into the low hundreds ;-) (Peter and I are adding +100 on this feature request.) http://forums.4d.fr/Post/EN/19051683/1/19051684 ********************************************************************** 4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG) FAQ: http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html Archive: http://lists.4d.com/archives.html Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech Unsub: mailto:[email protected] **********************************************************************
